Re: [council] DRAFT minutes, NCtelecon 26 Feb, for validation

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Maca,

Thank you for drafting minutes in so timely manner. It helps a lot.

Please find inside corrections to my text.

Elisabeth


> 
> Agenda item 8: ccTLDs - report on issues arising from the 2001 
> Hawaii and Geneva meetings 
> 
> 
> 
> E. Porteneuve reported on recent ccTLDs meetings held in Hawaii and Geneva.
> 
> 244 ccTLDs operate worldwide (set-up according to the ISO 31-11 codes) 
> while 98 (40%) contribute to the ICANN process. In voting procedures for NC,
> 95 ccTLDs took part, representing approximately the same percentage. 
> Last meeting in Geneva was very well attended, 70 ccTLDs were represented
> 
> The topics discussed concerned 
> 
> -   Discussions with ICANN,
> 
> -   Agreement with ICANN + GAC,
> 
> -   Financial contribution to ICANN (ccTLDs contribute 30% of overall ICANN budget).
> 
> It was strongly felt that the ccTLDs have little chance to have a 
> representative elected to the ICANN Board and are therefore, seeking 
> new ways to get Board representation.  This does not preclude their 
> participation within DNSO. The same topics will be discussed in 
> Melbourne to fulfil ccTLDs goal to outreach to a largest possible 
> number of ccTLDs in different regions of the world.

==> To be replaced by:

 244 ccTLDs operate worldwide (set-up according to the ISO 3166-1 codes) 
 while 98 (40%) contribute to the ICANN process. In voting for NC delegates
 (both in 1999 and 2000) 95 ccTLDs took part, representing approximately 
 the same percentage. 
 Last meeting in Geneva was very well attended, 70 ccTLDs were represented
 the highest number ever reached in ccTLD-ICANN events. 

 Three main topics were discussed:
 
 -   Agreement ccTLD with ICANN (including GAC);
     The assuption on contracts with ccTLD seems rather unrealistic 
     - the extension of USG agreement with ICANN expect the contract 
     with ccTLD within less than one year, which may be summarized by
     "242 countries and territories in 242 days ?"
     There is still a lot of work to understand what the contract 
     or Memorandum of Understanding between ccTLD and ICANN is about.

 -   Financial contribution to ICANN (ccTLDs were requested to
     contribute 35% of overall ICANN budget for fiscal years 1999-2000
     and 2000-2001, 1.5 million USD per year).

 -   Direct relationship between ccTLD and ICANN, whether as a Supporting
     Organization or as an Advisory Committee.

 
 It was strongly felt that the ccTLDs have little chance to have a 
 representative elected to the ICANN Board and are therefore, seeking 
 new ways to communicate directly with the Board. This does not preclude the
 channel of communication within the DNSO. The same topics will be discussed
 in Melbourne to fulfil ccTLDs goal to outreach to a largest possible 
 number of ccTLDs in different regions of the world.

 More documents on ccTLD-ICANN meetings is available at the ccTLD website,
 http://www.wwtld.org/meetings/cctld/20010201.ccTLD-ICANN-agenda.html

> 
> P. de Blanc added that the Geneva meeting was a significant success 
> and attracted ccTLDs from African countries, which was rather positive. 
> The ccTLDs want to support ICANN process and are very much interested 
> in NSI contract and discussions on gTLDs. But they would like ICANN 
> to move away from US centric and gTLD issues and have more resources 
> dedicated to ccTLDs matters.
> 
> Th. Swinehart asked about those ccTLDs who market themselves 
> non-geographically and those who do not, and how this difference is 
> being handled.
> 
> P.de Blanc assured that the percentage of commercial ccTLDs is 
> insignificant. Some are operating as gTLDs and are not subject to the UDRP.
> 
> O. Garay said that the current situation is caused by a lack of formal 
> agreement with ICANN. This should be achieved.
> 
> Y.J. Park asked what is the status now with the 244 ccTLDs.
> 
> P. de Blanc responded that the status quo would remain. Priorities 
> will come up for economic reasons: smaller ccTLDs will have to do 
> some outreach.
> 
> Y.J Park said that many of them do not know what is in the ICANN contract.
> 
> P.de Blanc informed that 20 or 30 contracts would be in hand by the 
> time the contract with US government will be extended. ccTLDs 
> recommended to ICANN to start with draft contracts instead of 
> coming with a new contract as most ccTLDs would certainly agree to sign.
>